Pro-Life/Pro-Baby ping!
Please FReepmail me if you would like to be added to, or removed from, the Pro-Life/Pro-Baby ping list...
Posted on 03/07/2007 4:30:14 PM PST by wagglebee
LIVINGSTON, United Kingdom, March 7, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A prenatal screening test given to a UK woman in early pregnancy showed her baby had died, and the next day she underwent a procedure to remove the child's body from the womb. Three weeks later, however, she discovered her baby was alive and healthy, in a miraculous escape from failed technology.
Jake Brown was born Feb. 24 at St. John's Hospital in Livingston, healthy and untouched by the trauma of his early development, The Telegraph reported March 7. His mother, Julie Brown, 29, said "The thought of them trying to get rid of a perfectly healthy baby makes me sick to the pit of my stomach, but I've got to move forward now."
The hospital had conducted a scan on Mrs. Brown at five and a half weeks gestation and could not find a heart beat or signs of growth. She was told the child had died and scheduled for a dilation and curettage procedure the next day. Somehow, her baby survived.
""The hospital has explained to me exactly what went wrong (with the diagnosis)," Mrs. Brown said. "The baby's sac hadn't changed size, but the baby had. The woman carrying out the scan didn't notice this and she thought I'd miscarried."
Errors in prenatal testing are far more common than many people realize. While more and more parents are depending on technology to identify potential health problems in their unborn children, many are not aware of the significant inaccuracy rates in prenatal screening. Abortion of the child is most often the result, even though in many cases scans are inconclusive or show only an increased possibility of health problems.
Down's syndrome is one of the most common pre-natal diagnoses to lead to abortion--but studies show screening tests for Down's are inaccurate up to 40 percent of the time.
A recent Canadian study found more natural differences between the genetic code of individuals than previous researchers had thought existed, leading to greater difficulty in establishing a "normal" genetic code as a basis for evaluating pre-natal scans. Published in the journal Nature, the report suggested that prenatal screening may incorrectly diagnose genetic differences as "defects".
While the Browns don't intend to pursue legal action against the hospital, the couple said the mistake caused pain and trauma to the whole family.
"They booked me in for an operation to remove the baby and we were all devastated,' Mrs. Brown said. "We then had to explain to my children Sarah and Leon that the baby had gone to heaven. My husband and the children were in floods of tears."
See related LifeSiteNews coverage:
Prenatal Screening not so Accurate as Once Thought - "Normal" Children Killed as "Defective"?
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/nov/06112403.html
British Abortion Rate Skyrockets as Couples Eliminate "Defective" Children
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/may/04053105.html
UK Doctors Who Performed Frivolous Late-Term Abortions Let Off
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/mar/05031602.html
Please FReepmail me if you would like to be added to, or removed from, the Pro-Life/Pro-Baby ping list...
Why does he have to prove a statement with the words "I think" in it? Pretty obvious to me he's stating an opinion.
That appears to be pretty clear about what this mother believes the intent was by the doctors.
We were told with our first child after the "first screening" that the baby might have Down's. Genetic counseling at a specific hospital was recommended. We decided to have the counseling at a hosptial closer to our home. When I told the doctor I wanted to have it at the other hospital her response was "Why? They won't do abortions after the 26th week there?". Needless to say we kept the appt. with the second hospital that had no financial ties to or reason to promote abortion period. Further, our child was born perfectly healthy. I still shudder at the thought mothers might have actually aborted a healthy child due to these biased situations. Of course, I'm against abortion period..not just the healthy child.
A couple of years later I miscarried a baby about the same age as the one in this article. While waiting for the D&C I actually, thankfully, had a natural miscarriage so I will never have a doubt about whether or not there was a possibility of things being a mistake.
I am with ya.
Oh WOW how ADORABLE & PRECIOUS! :)
Unfortunately some (even some who claim to be conservatives), will probably find reasons to disbelieve your experiences.
Thank you for sharing that. wagglebee is correct - there will always be those who think your experience is an uncommon one.
My experience, times 2, wasn't as involved as yours. When pregnant with my 4 yr old, I was advised to get the prenatal screenings for multiple reasons, foremost being to check the baby's health.
I still remember this: I was at UCLA. Their own pamphlets talk about false positives and how more testing was possible upon request. Request! I refused them and was made to sign triplicate forms over & over. And also continuously asked why I had refused them.
This time around (baby's due next month), I refused all screenings up front and told them why. "No matter what you say, I won't terminate." The nurse's reaction? "Good for you."
I continued and told them I WILL take the tests, however, if they are ALSO needed to prepare doctors for a baby that may need special care upon birth.
I was told it wasn't necessary, and no prenatal testing was done. Guess they aren't so important after all.
That is their problem not mine. It was at that point though that I quit believing the medical community was all knowing and frankly trustworthy. As my hubby points out "it is the Practice of medicine" and "mortuary Science". I have no qualms about getting 2nd (or 3rd) opinions if needed.
Now that you mention it I do think we had to verify we had the counseling. Which frankly I didn't understand. Because they couldn't say anything more than "you might want to have more tests, which, of course btw, have this much chance of miscarriage associated with them." Since we would not have aborted even if the tests proved beyond a doubt we declined them.
I was responding to a statement that did not include the words I think. It was presented as a fact!
Congratulations about your baby!
Were you told that your unborn baby had no heartbeat? I can't imagine that is a very common misdiagnosis.
This wasn't an abortionist.
Regardless, doesn't something seem not right about this article. They take the baby from the woman, and then 3 weeks later she finds out that the kid is alive! Doesn't add up.
Some of you have probably seen these--Actually you posted the second one, wagglebee:
Here's a recent case--one that went in for an abortion:
Mum Gives Birth.......After Abortion
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1787141/posts
February 17, 2007
and here's the more famous one that sued because one of the twins got away:
Woman Sues For Wrongful Birth of Surviving Twin After Failed Abortion
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1600598/posts
March 21, 2006
No, because I had refused both tests both times.
Yeah, I was slightly confused...How do you NOT know you have a baby in your womb? Err...Isn't it kind of...obvious?
And...how do you NOT know he's alive? *confused*
This article just proves that Medical Science isn't all it's cracked up to be.
IF a mother-to-be doesn't believe in abortion,then WHY all these pre-natal tests ?
to prepare for what massive difference ?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.